משנה כָּל־הָרוּקִּין הַנִּמְצָאִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם טְהוֹרִין חוּץ מִשֶּׁל שׁוּק הָעֶלְיוֹן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. Halakha 1 · MISHNA The mishna discusses the ritual purity of items found either in the Temple or in Jerusalem and its environs, in continuation of the previous chapter’s discussion of found money, animals, or meat. All the spittle that is found in Jerusalem is ritually pure. Since neither ritually impure people nor gentiles were commonly present in Jerusalem, the Sages decreed an exception to the rule that spittle that is found is ritually impure since it presumably comes from one of those groups. This is the case except for spittle found in the upper marketplace, where gentiles and ritually impure Jews were likely to be present. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁאָר כָּל־יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע טְמֵאִין שֶׁבַּצְּדָדִין טְהוֹרִין. וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל שֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע טְהוֹרִין שֶׁבַּצְּדָדִין טְמֵאִין שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי שֶהַמּוּעָטִין מִסְתַּלְּקִין לַצְּדָדִין׃ Rabbi Yosei says: On all the other days of the year, i.e., any day that is not on one of the three pilgrim Festivals, Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot, spittle that is found in the middle of the street is ritually impure, and spittle that is found on the sides of the street is ritually pure. According to Rabbi Yosei, it was common for people who were ritually impure to be present in the streets of Jerusalem. They would be careful to walk in the middle of the street, while the ritually pure who wished to remain so would walk on the sides. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that spittle found in the middle of the street is from one who is impure, while spittle found on the side of the street is from one who is pure. But during the time of the Festival, when most of the people in Jerusalem were there for the Festival and were ritually pure, the spittle found in the middle of the street was ritually pure, and that found on the sides of the street was ritually impure. The difference is due to the fact that at the time of the Festival, the ritually impure minority moves to the sides of the streets.
כָּלַ־הַכֵּלִים הַנִּמְצָאִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם דֶּרֶךְ יְרִידָה לְבֵית הַטְּבִילָה טְמֵאִין וְדֶרֶךְ עֲלִיָּה טְהוֹרִין שֶׁלֹּא כִּירִידָתָן עֲלִייָתָן דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר כּוּלָּן טְהוֹרִין חוּץ מִן הַסַּל וְהַמַּגְרֵיפָה הַמְיוּחָדִין לַקְּבָרוֹת׃ The mishna continues: All the vessels that are found in Jerusalem on the way down into the bathhouse, wherein one purifies vessels in a ritual bath, are ritually impure, and those that are found on the way up are ritually pure. The mishna explains: Their descent into the bathhouse is not by the same route as their ascent out of it, and it can be assumed that those found on the way down have not yet been immersed, while those found on the way up have been. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yosei says: They are all ritually pure, except for the basket, and the shovel, and the meritza, which are specifically used for graves, to gather up the bones of the dead. These tools must be presumed to be ritually impure, but in general, vessels are presumed to be pure.
סַכִּין שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד. בִּשְׁלְֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹנֶה וּמַטְבִּיל. The mishna continues with another ruling about ritual purity: One may slaughter immediately with a knife that was found on the fourteenth of Nisan, i.e., the day the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, and need not be concerned that it is ritually impure. Presumably it was immersed the day before so that it could be used to slaughter the Paschal offering. If he found it on the thirteenth of Nisan, he immerses it again. Perhaps its owners had not yet immersed it, since they still had time to do so before the evening.
קוֹפִיץ בֵּין בָּזֶה וּבֵין בָּזֶה שׁוֹנֶה וּמַטְבִּיל. חָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד. If one finds a cleaver [kofitz], which is used to slaughter an animal and break its bones, whether it was on this day, i.e., the fourteenth, or on that day, i.e., the thirteenth, he immerses it again out of doubt. Since breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb is prohibited, its owners would have no need for it on the fourteenth, and it cannot be presumed that it has already been immersed to make it ritually pure. However, if the fourteenth occurs on Shabbat, he may slaughter with the cleaver immediately. Since immersing a vessel is prohibited on Shabbat, and presumably the owner of the cleaver wants it to be ritually pure on the fifteenth, one can assume that he immersed it already on Friday, the thirteenth of Nisan. It is therefore ritually pure.
[דף כא:] בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד. נִמְצֵאת קְשׁוּרָה לְסַכִּין הֲרֵי זוֹ כַּסַּכִּין׃ [21b] If the cleaver was found on the fifteenth of Nisan, i.e., if it was found on the Festival itself, he may slaughter with it immediately. The owners of the cleaver would have immersed it so that they could use it on the fifteenth to cut up the bones of a Festival peace-offering. If the cleaver was found attached to a knife, it is like a knife, i.e., if it was found on the thirteenth of Nisan it is presumed impure, and if it was found on the fourteenth he may slaughter with it immediately, as it was certainly immersed on the day before.
הלכה כָּל־הָרוּקִּין כול׳. רִבִּי אַבִּין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. קַצְרָן שֶׁלְגּוֹיִם הָיָה שָׁם. GEMARA: The mishna taught that according to Rabbi Meir, all spittle that is found in Jerusalem is ritually pure, except if it were found in the upper marketplace. With regard to this, Rabbi Avin in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains: A fortress [katzran] of gentiles was there in the upper marketplace. The Sages decreed that gentiles have the ritual impurity of a zav (see Shabbat 17b and Nidda 34a), therefore their spittle is impure. The Roman soldiers were gentiles, so any spittle found in the upper marketplace was presumably theirs.
אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. עֲרוּדוֹת הָיוּ נוֹחֲרִין בִּירוּשָׁלִַם וְהָיוּ עוֹלֵי רְגָלִים מִשְׁתַּקְּעִין בַּדָּם עַד אַרְכּוּבוֹתֵיהֶן. [וּבָאוּ לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְלֹא אָֽמְרוּ לָהֶם דָּבָר.] רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. קַצְרָן שֶׁלְגּוֹיִם הָיָה שָׁם. The Gemara recounts an incident about this fortress. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Once they were killing wild donkeys in Jerusalem, to feed the lions in the circus (see Menaḥot 103b), and the pilgrims coming to Jerusalem to celebrate the Festival were wading in blood up to their ankles from the large amount of blood coming from the wild donkeys. And they came before the Sages to find out if they had been rendered ritually impure, and they, the Sages, did not say anything, as the blood of an animal carcass does not render one ritually impure, even though the carcass itself does. Where did this story take place? Rabbi Shimon bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: There was a gentile, i.e., Roman, fortress there, in the upper marketplace of Jerusalem, and that was where they were killing the wild donkeys.
רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. מַעֲשֶׂה בְפִרְדָה מִשֶּׁלְבֵּית רִבִּי שֶׁמֵּתָה וְטִיהֲרוּ אֶת דָּמֶיהָ מִשֵׁם נְבֵילָה. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שְׁאִיל לְרִבִּי סִימוֹן. עַד כַּמָּה. וְלֹא אַגִּיבֵיהּ. שְׁאִיל לְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. עַד רְבִיעִית טָהוֹר. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן טָמֵא וּבְאַשׁ לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר דְּלָא חֲזַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי סִימוֹן שְׁמוּעֲתָא. Apropos the ritual impurity of blood from an animal carcass, the Gemara recounts that. Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: There was an incident with regard to a mule from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s household that died, and the Sages ruled its blood to be ritually pure and not subject to the impurity imparted by an animal carcass. On this topic, Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Simon: Up to how much blood from an animal carcass does not render one ritually impure? And he did not answer him. He then went and asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said to him: Up to the size of a quarter-log is ritually pure; more than that is ritually impure. And Rabbi Elazar was annoyed that Rabbi Simon did not respond with the halakha that the minimal size for ritual impurity is a quarter-log, as he certainly heard it from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
רַב בֵּיבַי הֲוָה יְתִיב מַתְנֵי הָדֵין עוֹבְדָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר בִּיסְנָא. עַד רְבִיעִית טָהוֹר. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן טָמֵא. וּבְעִט בֵּיהּ. The Gemara continues: Rav Beivai was sitting and teaching this story of the mule from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s household, in which the Sages ruled that the blood of a carcass does not render one impure. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Bisna said to him: Up to how much blood from an animal carcass does not render one ritually impure? Rav Beivai said to him: Up to a quarter-log is ritually pure; more than that is impure. And then he kicked him.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְרִיקָן. בְּגִין דְּהוּא שְׁאַל לָךְ אַתְּ בָּעִיט בֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. [בְּגִין] דְלָא הֲווָת דַּעְתִּי בִּי. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חָנִין. וְהָי֣וּ חַיֶּ֔יךָ תְּלוּיִים לְךָ֖ מִנֶּגֶ֑ד. זֶה שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ לוֹ חִיטִּים לַשָּׁנָה. וּפָֽחַדְתָּ֙ לַיְ֣לָה וְיוֹמָ֔ם. זֶה שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ מִן הַסִּידָקִי. וְלֹ֥א תַֽאֲמִ֖ין בְּחַיֶּֽיךָ׃ זֶה שֶׁהוּא לּוֹקֵחַ מִן הַפַּלְטָר. וַאֲנָא סְמִיךְ לְפַלְטֵירָא. Rabbi Zerika said to Rav Beivai: You kicked him because he asked you a question? He said to Rabbi Zerika: Because my mind was unsettled, and not because he did anything wrong. As Rabbi Ḥanin said in expounding the verse: “And your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall fear night and day, and shall have no assurance of your life” (Deuteronomy 28:66). “And your life shall hang in doubt before you”; this is one who buys for himself wheat for a year, who has no financial security with regard to the following year. “And you shall fear night and day”; this is one who is so poor that he buys wheat from the storekeeper a bit at a time, with the attendant concern that he might not have enough for the morrow. “And shall have no assurance of your life”; this is one who is so poor he buys from the baker and cannot afford to buy wheat in advance to assure even one future meal. And I rely on the baker, i.e., I am on this lowest level of poverty, and therefore I do not have the presence of mind to answer his questions.
מַאי כְדוֹן. הֵעִיד רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּתִירָא עַל דַּם נְבֵלוֹת שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר. מָהוּ טָהוֹר. טָהוֹר מִלְּהַכְשִׁיר. הָא לְטַמּוֹת מְטַמֵּא. The Gemara asks: What then is the halakhic ruling regarding the ritual impurity of the blood of an animal carcass? In response, the Gemara quotes a mishna (Eduyyot 8:1): Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora testified that the blood of animal carcasses is ritually pure, which implies that it is ritually pure regardless of the amount, even more than a quarter-log. The Gemara rejects this answer: What does the mishna mean by ritually pure? That such blood is ritually pure in that it does not render an item susceptible to impurity. Even though blood is one of the seven liquids that render an item susceptible to ritual impurity, the blood of an animal carcass is not deemed blood for this purpose. Nevertheless, with regard to conferring impurity, such blood does render something ritually impure.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. דַּם הַשֶּׁרֶץ מְטַמֵּא כִּבְשָׂרוֹ. מְטַמֵּא וְאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. וְאֵין לָנוּ כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ׃ The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in a mishna there (Makhshirin 6:5): The blood of a creeping animal confers ritual impurity, as does its flesh? It confers impurity, but does not render an item susceptible to impurity, and we have nothing else like it that confers impurity but does not render something susceptible to impurity. The implication is that the blood of an animal carcass would either both confer impurity and render an item susceptible to impurity or do neither.
אֵין לָנוּ כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ שִׁיעוּר טוּמְאָתוֹ. אֲבָל דָּמוֹ מְטַמֵּא כִּבְשָׂרוֹ. The Gemara answers: When the mishna said that we have nothing else like it, it meant that we have nothing else like it with regard to the measure required for this substance to confer impurity. The measure of both the blood and the flesh of a creeping animal required for conferring impurity is a lentil-bulk. Creeping animals are unique in this regard, since the measures of blood and flesh that confer impurity from an animal carcass are different. An olive-bulk of flesh is sufficient to confer impurity, while a quarter-log of blood is required. However, the Gemara concludes, its blood, i.e., that of an animal carcass, nevertheless confers impurity like its flesh.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף. Rabbi Yosei said: Two amora’im disputed this point, whether the blood of an animal carcass confers ritual impurity. One said a quarter-log of this blood renders one ritually impure, and one said that even after contact with this blood, one remains ritually pure.
מָאן דְּאָמַר טָמֵא. כְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר טָהוֹר. כְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן בָּתִירָה. The one who said ritually impure holds like the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as it appears in a mishna (Eduyyot 5:1). Rabbi Yehuda asserts there that this issue is the subject of a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The halakha would follow the opinion of Beit Hillel, which is that carcass blood does confer impurity. And the one who said ritually pure holds like the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora, who testified (Eduyyot 8:1) that the blood of an animal carcass is ritually pure. It appears that this amora interprets Rabbi Yehoshua ben Petora’s statement literally, implying that even more than a quarter-log of blood does not confer impurity.
אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב אֲבוּדָמָא נְחוּתָא. וְיָאוּת. רִבִּי יוּדָה מוֹדִייָנֵיהּ דְּנָשִׂייָא הֲוָה. Rav Avduma of the descenders, i.e., travelers from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bringing with them the Torah taught in Eretz Yisrael, said to him: And it is right, that which you explained is correct, as Rabbi Yehuda was the halakhic authority for the house of the Nasi. Rabbi Yehuda ruled then that the blood of the dead mule was pure only because there was less than a quarter-log of it.
לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. לֹא גָֽזְרוּ עַל הָרוּקִּים שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלִַם. [הָא אִיתְמַר] עֲלֵיהּ. רִבִּי אַבִּין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. קַצְרָן שֶׁלְגּוֹיִם הָיָה שָׁם. § The mishna states that according to Rabbi Meir’s opinion, all the spittle found in Jerusalem is pure, except for spittle found in the upper marketplace. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Abbahu say this in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥanina: The Sages did not decree the spittle found in Jerusalem to be ritually impure? If so, why is the spittle found in the upper marketplace ritually impure? The Gemara answers: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that marketplace that Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: A fortress of gentiles was there, and since the Sages decreed that gentiles have the ritual impurity of a zav, any spittle found there must be from them and therefore is ritually impure.
בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה הַטְּמֵאִים הוֹלְכִין שִׁיבּוֹלֶת וְהַטְּהוֹרִין מִהַלְּכִין מִן הַצַּד. וְהַטְּהוֹרִין מִהַלְּכִין סְתָם וְהַטְּמֵאִים אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם. פְּרוּשׁוּ. בִּשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל הַטְּהוּרִין מִהַלְּכִין שִׁיבּוֹלֶת וְהַטְּמֵאִין מִהַלְּכִין מִן הַצַּד. וְהַטְּמֵאִים מִהַלְּכִין סְתָם וְהַטְּהוֹרִין אוֹמְרִין לָהֶן. פְּרוּשׁוּ. The mishna also states Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that for most of the year, all spittle found in the middle of the street was impure and spittle found on the sides was pure; during the pilgrim Festival, the spittle in the middle was pure and that on the sides was impure. The Gemara discusses a baraita that explains this opinion: On the rest of the days of the year, the ritually impure proceed down the middle of the street in a group, and the pure proceed on the side to avoid contact that would render them impure. And the ritually pure proceed ordinarily and don’t warn the ritually impure not to touch them, while the impure are the ones who say to those who are ritually pure: Stay away. During the period of the pilgrim Festival the ritually pure proceed in a group in the middle of the street and the impure proceed on the side of the street. The impure proceed ordinarily and do not warn the ritually pure not to touch them, and the ritually pure are the ones who say to those who are impure: Stay away, i.e., be careful not to touch us and render us impure.
לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא גָֽזְרוּ עַל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלִַם .מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ יְרִידָה לְבֵית הַטְּבִילָה נַעֲשׂוּ הוֹכִיחַ. § The mishna further states: And all the vessels that are found in Jerusalem, if they are found on the way down to the bathhouse, where one purifies vessels in a ritual bath, they are ritually impure, and if they are found on the way up, they are ritually pure. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Abbahu say this in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The Sages did not decree ritual impurity with regard to the vessels found in Jerusalem? The Gemara answers: Since they were found on the way down to the bathhouse, it becomes as if it had been conclusively demonstrated that they are ritually impure, for one does not bring a vessel to be immersed if it is not ritually impure.
אַבָּא שָׁאוּל הָיָה קוֹרֵא אוֹתָן צִיפּוֹרֶן. מָאן דְּאָמַר צִיפּוֹרֶן. שֶׁהוּא דוֹמֶה לַצִּיפוֹרֶן. מָאן דְּאָמַר מְרִיצָה. שֶׁהִיא מְרִיצָה אֶת הָאֶבֶן [לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת.] The mishna also states that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that all vessels that are found in Jerusalem are ritually pure, except for the basket, the shovel, and the meritza, which are specifically used for graves. The Gemara recounts that Abba Shaul, who was a gravedigger and regularly used such tools, would call them, the tools referred to by the name meritza, fingernails [tzipporin]. The Gemara explains: The one who said to call it tzipporin did so because this tool was similar in appearance to a fingernail, with a sharp point. The one who said to call it a meritza, literally, a runner, did so because it is a tool with which one runs, i.e., moves the stone used to close the entrance to the burial cave to the cemetery.
תַּנֵּי. הַסַּכִּין קְשׁוּרָה לוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ כְמוֹתָהּ. The mishna also states that if the cleaver is found tied to a knife, it has the same rule as the knife with regard to ritual impurity. The Gemara quotes: It was taught in a baraita that disagrees with the halakha in the mishna, and in its view, if the knife were tied to the cleaver, it has the same halakha as the cleaver, and if the cleaver is ritually impure, the knife is also ritually impure.